This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2017-01 New Policy Proposal (Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-01 New Policy Proposal (Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] recantation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Farmer
farmer at umn.edu
Tue May 2 23:06:25 CEST 2017
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis at v4escrow.net> wrote: > Hi Sascha, > > > On 4/26/17 1:26 AM, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > >> Hi Elvis, >> >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 07:42:12PM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: >> >>> >>> What it will do is, for 'transfers' of Legacy space where both the old >>> and the new holder want to have it verified by the RIPE NCC, both parties >>> will need to sign a document where parties authorised to sign will confirm >>> the change of the legacy holder (basically, a transfer). >>> >> >> Oh, this is *voluntary*? >> > kinda... I am expecting all Buyers to request this process when they > decide to receive a Legacy Resource. I would definitely request it if I > knew the RIPE NCC can provide an additional confirmation. > Currently as written it's voluntary from the perspective of RIPE policy, but if almost all sophisticated buyers expect it, is it truly voluntary? Furthermore, doesn't having it be voluntary unnecessary expose unsophisticated buyers to a higher risk from fraudulent actors? Is caveat emptor really the fundamental concept we want enshrined in policy for the transfer of Legacy Resources? Then, what about any LRHs that want the additional protection of RIPE validating any and all attempted transfers of their resource by possibly fraudulent actors. It may be an additional requirement, but that can also be seen as additional layer of protection for both sides. For buyers there is some protection they not dealing with a fraudulent seller. For LRHs it makes it a little harder for someone to fraudulently sell their resources out from under them. We can't eliminate fraud, but making this mandatory seems like a minimal level of protection for both buyers and LRHs. Thanks. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20170502/50a32d0c/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-01 New Policy Proposal (Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] recantation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]